Getting back to the story: Hands-on with Dungeons & Dragons Next

How Mike Mearls' team is returning D&D to its collaborative storytelling roots.

Don't want to play with these kinds of miniatures in D&D Next? Good news: You don't have to!

Charlie Hall

The second week in August marked the 45th anniversary of GenCon. “The best four days in gaming” has grown more than 30 percent since 2010, with over 41,000 badges sold this year. Originally started as a small gathering of Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax’s friends, GenCon now finds itself the capstone event amidst a kind of golden age for so-called hobby games. Board gamers, role-playing gamers, LARPers, and war gamers all sit shoulder to shoulder in its massive play spaces, while buskers vie for their attention on the nearly 400-strong vendor floor. Boosted by satellite events like PAX and the un-closeting of an emboldened gamer population at large, there’s plenty of room for continued growth.

Buried inside the sacred tome that is GenCon’s annual program, amidst the thousands of play sessions of new and old properties, was a listing for an entirely new event—a keynote presentation. To no one’s surprise, the keynote presentation was given by Wizards of the Coast (WotC). Their goal? To rally the faithful around their grand experiment called "D&D Next."

The time of troubles

The Dungeons & Dragons family of games has been in and out of a state of civil war throughout its history. Call them “The Edition Wars.” OD&D begat AD&D which begat Third Edition, and with each transition came, if not enmity within the ranks, then perhaps the kind of gentle chiding that siblings have for one another across the dinner table. But nothing ruined Thanksgiving quite like the row that developed over the release of Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition, colloquially known as D&D 4e.

Help shape D&D Next

WotC wants Next to be an epic revitalization of D&D, so the company has made a playtest available now despite the final product being two years out. I encourage you to take a look, open for download right here.

Released in 2008, this ruleset was like nothing like the ones that had come before it. It emphasized “powers” as the main element of growth for the player character (PC), a catalog of skills which changed and expanded the capabilities of a PC over time. Many of the old guard thought that these powers looked and felt a lot like the skills one might gain in an MMO, with all the buffs, debuffs, and cooldown timers that went along with them. Others lamented the game system's lack of cohesion. Elements of lore and useful rules were scattered haphazardly over dozens of books, each of which were themselves fattened with scores of magical items that began to blur together into a coagulated hunk of loot.

I dove headlong into 4e as soon as it was released, and my own campaign almost immediately became bogged down in combat. What I remembered primarily as a communal storytelling experience during my years playing D&D version 2.5 became a fairly ponderous miniatures wargame with the introduction of 4e.

Several sessions into 4e, I came to a painful realization: if it took 10 encounters to gain a level for a PC, and if our combat encounters continued to span two to four hours of play time each, it would be a very long while before we reached level 10, where great boons were granted and characters truly evolved. To make matters worse, our play space had become a riot of status indicators, books, character sheets, and decks of custom-printed power cards that made setup and teardown a chore. Four years later, we still have yet to reach level 11.

My play group’s experience is probably an extreme case, but I'm sure there are plenty of other seasoned gamer groups whose members have families and day jobs that had a similar experience with the 4e rules changes. Anecdotal evidence gleaned from my friendly local game stores, where high level campaign modules still linger on the shelves years after their initial publication, suggests that the fourth edition of D&D has mostly stalled out at retail.

Heavy weighs the head

Mike Mearls is the unassuming man tasked with breathing new life into D&D. The senior manager of research and development for D&D tends to absently brush aside the bouncy, bright shock of reddish hair that rests atop his head. Like many dungeon masters (DMs) I have played with, he is both deliberate and aloof, as likely to drift off in thought as to be preternaturally quick to respond to those around him. But like a particularly engaged classics professor, or a maniacal improv actor, he is terrifically present at the game table. During a press-only playtest on the GenCon floor, he opened up his secret stash of lore for me and a group of colleagues, sharing the introduction to a larger campaign he once played with friends, all set to the new beat of D&D Next.

You’re in a lumber town, north of the main areas of the civilized world. For years Axefold was protected by a band of druids and rangers who lived in the old wood and would hunt down orcs, goblins, and other monsters… 20 years ago a great green dragon descended upon the wood. The rangers and druids came together and fought a great, epic battle in the woods. The folk of the town could hear the thunder of spells, lighting spilling down from the sky, storm clouds gathering and the dragon’s great roar… And then there was silence.

D&D Next will be the most rigorously playtested role-playing product that WotC has ever brought to market.

In May, D&D Next launched the largest playtest that WotC has ever assembled, letting anyone sign up to download and try early ruleset and adventure material, and then share their thoughts with the development team. Armed with a set of classic pre-generated characters and only the most meager selection of rules, these testers have set out on a quixotic journey to try to break the D&D Next system before it's ready. D&D Next will be the most rigorously playtested role-playing product that WotC has ever brought to market; the company says it has already received much more feedback than it did during the entirety of the 4e beta.

Mearls and his team are serious about the business of play. Their goal is nothing short of redefining what D&D is, to return it to its core principles of exploration, adventure, and storytelling. To hear them tell it, this won't merely be another layer to cover over what has come before, but a flexible ruleset with variable complexity, perfectly capable of playing as a tactical miniatures game like 4e, or as an old school “talkie.” Without a 1-inch grid ever being rolled out on the table, and without a single ounce of pewter cast in the image of an elf or a dwarf, D&D Next games can consist entirely of the interactions between the players and the DM, of dice and words alone.

Days passed… bled into weeks… into months without any sign of the druids and rangers who once watched over the wood or the great dragon they fought. Even to this day no one is sure where this battle took place or what transpired. But most folk presume that the rangers and their allies and the dragon were all slain. And of course without all the forest’s protectors and overseers, bands of goblins, orcs, and the other creatures have slowly begun to return and threaten Axefold.

206 Reader Comments

What's up with WotC using rule set refreshes to release new products? I don't even know why they moved to D&D 4e. 3e was supposed to be vastly simplified, and 3.5 a refinement on that.

"Vastly simplified"?! Compared to what? I've never heard that claim, and as someone who has played every edition after the original white box, as well as dozens or hundreds of other RPGs, and was paying keen attention to the press surrounding the release of D&D3E, I don't remember any claims that it was "vastly simplified" or even "simplified"--the selling points were flexibility, balance, fun, consistency, mechanics that made sense, character customization--I don't recall "simplified" ever being a major selling point. Certainly, compared to the immediately-preceding ruleset, AD&D2, it was more, not less, complex, if more ordered and consistent. Even using the Players' Option series of books, I'm not sure that AD&D2 could be more complex than D&D3E, especially once you add in a few sourcebooks.

I don't know about "vastly simplified," but it was simplified in that it was the introduction of the d20 system. Rolling high was always better than rolling low. THAC0 and the old saving throws were eliminated, armor classes and initiative rules were changed, monster stats and abilities went through major overhauls. Granted, many of the changes, were not really simplifications, per se. Replacement of proficiencies and specialization rules with skills and feats, for example. "simplified" probably isn't right word here. "Streamlined", "clarified", or "made to be actually useful and/or less stupid" would be better. I loved 2nd edition as much as anyone, but it started getting out of hand with all the splat books they published.

What's up with WotC using rule set refreshes to release new products? I don't even know why they moved to D&D 4e. 3e was supposed to be vastly simplified, and 3.5 a refinement on that.

"Vastly simplified"?! Compared to what? I've never heard that claim, and as someone who has played every edition after the original white box, as well as dozens or hundreds of other RPGs, and was paying keen attention to the press surrounding the release of D&D3E, I don't remember any claims that it was "vastly simplified" or even "simplified"--the selling points were flexibility, balance, fun, consistency, mechanics that made sense, character customization--I don't recall "simplified" ever being a major selling point. Certainly, compared to the immediately-preceding ruleset, AD&D2, it was more, not less, complex, if more ordered and consistent. Even using the Players' Option series of books, I'm not sure that AD&D2 could be more complex than D&D3E, especially once you add in a few sourcebooks.

I don't know about "vastly simplified," but it was simplified in that it was the introduction of the d20 system. Rolling high was always better than rolling low. THAC0 and the old saving throws were eliminated, armor classes and initiative rules were changed, monster stats and abilities went through major overhauls. Granted, many of the changes, were not really simplifications, per se. Replacement of proficiencies and specialization rules with skills and feats, for example. "simplified" probably isn't right word here. "Streamlined", "clarified", or "made to be actually useful and/or less stupid" would be better. I loved 2nd edition as much as anyone, but it started getting out of hand with all the splat books they published.

I think the problem was that AD&D was never DESIGNED in any coherent sense as a system. Once 2e started trying to layer options on top of a sort of random conglomeration of underlying mechanics the system immediately fell apart. 3e apparently started from a concept that just cleaning up the underlying core would allow basically the same sort of collection of options to work, and then feats were larded on top. That failed as well because underlying 'gamist' considerations weren't considered. Mechanically 3e is fairly clean, but AS A GAME it just fails to work.

4e clearly picked up where 3.5 left off, with a somewhat cleaner core (everything is an attack vs a defense, no more saves being different). On top of that all the options were structured and treated in a consistent way, which successfully gives you a workable system. Even after going on 5 years and over 30 supplements it still works reasonably well.

Sadly Mike Mearls doesn't seem to appreciate what he's got. Loads could be done with that system and without that sort of system the next edition will collapse in a heap of crap like 3e did. Oh well.

I started playing AD&D in the 2nd grade, introduced by a friend that was a year older, who played with kids older than him. Up through college D&D was my game/pasttime/etc of choice. 2nd Ed had some nice improvements, especially adding in the non-combat skills.

In college I got introduced to RuneQuest, I guess in its Avalon Hill heyday. I loved not having a class, but being a collection of skills. So much more modular, a relatively simple core mechanic that could be applied to many situations. The other great thing was the world of Glorantha - so much lore, and the great group of players in my college gaming group. They actually truly awakened me into role-playing.

D&D 3rd ed - I bought the core book, read it. There was stuff I liked - certainly they cleaned things up a lot. But then to balance that out, added all sorts of crap like Feats and other things I felt smacked of collectible card game mechanics. Of course, not sure I can ever like a class-based RPG ever again - so freakin restrictive. I won't even mention the following Abomination Which Must Not Be Named.

I'd argue D&D next should be bolder, more inventive - but I don't think it'll be D&D anymore. I have great memories of D&D, warts and all. But the warts are part of it. Its not that the Abomination was truly bad, but rather it wasn't D&D - it wasn't part of the lineage mechanics-wise. I bet it could have done a lot better if it had not been given the D&D name.

I'm not too impressed with D&D Next so far. Sure, its going back to a more 2nd/3rd feel - but what's the point, any gamer with half a brain can make their own rules tweaks to get that. Plus, they're adding what I consider the worst of more modern RPGs - turning personality into game mechanics. Backgrounds? Ugh. No, really, what happened to trying to encourage imagination? Instead, let's create a bunch of template personality aspects and then have players pick something from column A, column B and column C - and voila! - a personality and background for your character.

Central Casting: Heroes of Legend was all we ever needed, even if you didn't roll the backgrounds and just chose some of them instead --- it was a great help to flesh out your character (or NPCs). Kinda hard to recommend now though, as it's used (out of print) and listing for $90 - $300. Too bad I only have 1!

It will definitely be interesting to see where WoTC goes with D&D Next. Although at this stage it seems like they really don't have a clue: Crowdsourcing the game-system; making multiple "houserules" for core mechanics. I don't see how an attempt to appease everyone can be successful.

It's true that Paizo has done playtests as well, but it seemed like they were seeking feedback on balance more so than WoTC, in what appears to be akin to an amorphous blob of core mechanics shifting from one thing to the next depending on how the wind blows.

Central Casting: Heroes of Legend was all we ever needed, even if you didn't roll the backgrounds and just chose some of them instead --- it was a great help to flesh out your character (or NPCs). Kinda hard to recommend now though, as it's used (out of print) and listing for $90 - $300. Too bad I only have 1!

It will definitely be interesting to see where WoTC goes with D&D Next. Although at this stage it seems like they really don't have a clue: Crowdsourcing the game-system; making multiple "houserules" for core mechanics. I don't see how an attempt to appease everyone can be successful.

It's true that Paizo has done playtests as well, but it seemed like they were seeking feedback on balance more so than WoTC, in what appears to be akin to an amorphous blob of core mechanics shifting from one thing to the next depending on how the wind blows.

Central Casting: Heroes of Legend was all we ever needed, even if you didn't roll the backgrounds and just chose some of them instead --- it was a great help to flesh out your character (or NPCs). Kinda hard to recommend now though, as it's used (out of print) and listing for $90 - $300. Too bad I only have 1!

It will definitely be interesting to see where WoTC goes with D&D Next. Although at this stage it seems like they really don't have a clue: Crowdsourcing the game-system; making multiple "houserules" for core mechanics. I don't see how an attempt to appease everyone can be successful.

It's true that Paizo has done playtests as well, but it seemed like they were seeking feedback on balance more so than WoTC, in what appears to be akin to an amorphous blob of core mechanics shifting from one thing to the next depending on how the wind blows.

Yeah, I like the whole background thing as it was done in 4e. You could pick none, or anywhere up to 5 elements of different types. The blurb for each one was more a "maybe you were..." rather than something canned that you just copied onto your sheet. It could get people thinking. You could also just make up your own. The ones they have in Heroes of the Feywild are even more interesting. Mechanically there's really nothing to them, you get a skill added to the list you can pick from (class skill list), basically just a little help giving you what you want to make what you want.

AD&D 2e threw out all the the complexity, demons, and other objectionable elements in a very explicit attempt to market the game to children. While there were still some tables in the rulebooks, the game itself was neutered. Why buy AD&D books if all you're going to do is make stuff up as you go along?

Surely that's why 2e was the best of the lot? Any good AD&D game involved all kinds of making shit up as you go along. The rulebooks existed to give a foundation and to be authoritative in case of arguments.

That was the problem, though. TSR at that time was of the mindset they had to fill their schedule with products people could buy for their game. Thus, you got rulebooks for everything imaginable, even if it was horribly broken when combined with any other rulebook in the game. The simplicity was killed by a mountain of "optional" rules everyone wanted to use.

4e clearly picked up where 3.5 left off, with a somewhat cleaner core (everything is an attack vs a defense, no more saves being different). On top of that all the options were structured and treated in a consistent way, which successfully gives you a workable system. Even after going on 5 years and over 30 supplements it still works reasonably well.

Sadly Mike Mearls doesn't seem to appreciate what he's got. Loads could be done with that system and without that sort of system the next edition will collapse in a heap of crap like 3e did. Oh well.

I really can't blame Mearls on this one. The fanbase reacted to 4e as if someone used their favorite game as toilet paper, and sales were not as brisk as WotC wanted. The takeaway from that is that players want something more like AD&D/3.5e rules.

On the plus side, 4e material is still available so folks can still play with that. And Next/5e looks like it has enough room for fudging rules from other editions into it. I just hope that doesn't backfire the way all the extra rules for 2e did.

My gaming group just finished a 1st ed AD&D campaign that lasted 12 years (I was only part of it for the last 4 years or so), and are ~ 10 months into a 4th ed campaign. I like the combat mechanics (playing with minis isn't an issue for us. We already did so in the last campaign), but I really don't like the fact that you can't really be creative with 4th ed. In 1st ed, there were a lot of non-combat spells that, if used creatively, were great in combat.4th ed, that is all gone, which I think is a shame.

The 4th ed rules are really lacking in color, but I don't have much of an issue with that. I tihnk it's up to the GM and the players to provide the color for a setting. Make up your own interesting NPCs, create your character's backstory. Add conflict by making decisions in charcater which are a really bad idea, but fit his personality. All of this is independant of the rules.

(FYI- never played 2nd - 3.5. Realy, I was anti AD&D from the mid 80s until a few years ago. 1st ed has some horribly arbitrary rules (no bladed weapons for clerics? Class limits based on race?) )

4e clearly picked up where 3.5 left off, with a somewhat cleaner core (everything is an attack vs a defense, no more saves being different). On top of that all the options were structured and treated in a consistent way, which successfully gives you a workable system. Even after going on 5 years and over 30 supplements it still works reasonably well.

Sadly Mike Mearls doesn't seem to appreciate what he's got. Loads could be done with that system and without that sort of system the next edition will collapse in a heap of crap like 3e did. Oh well.

I really can't blame Mearls on this one. The fanbase reacted to 4e as if someone used their favorite game as toilet paper, and sales were not as brisk as WotC wanted. The takeaway from that is that players want something more like AD&D/3.5e rules.

On the plus side, 4e material is still available so folks can still play with that. And Next/5e looks like it has enough room for fudging rules from other editions into it. I just hope that doesn't backfire the way all the extra rules for 2e did.

I think the fanbase wanted to punish WotC for taking them for granted. I think they'd have accepted what was done game-wise with 4e if it had been packaged a bit differently. In fact I suspect if they'd presented 4e as a playtest and then refluffed a lot of the stuff in more traditional terms, fixed some gameplay issues, and presented it better that we'd be playing basically 4e and people would be happy.

I suppose we can blame that marketing disaster that was the 3.5 -> 4e version roll as a 'gift' from Bill Slavicsek, he seems to have been in charge there. Meh, they're screwed now. I think all the people that got pissed off at the transition to 4e will mostly keep playing PF and most of the people that liked 4e are going to be pissed off by 5e. WotC will have achieved nervana, a famous brand name product with no happy customers and a product that is basically an imitation of what their main competitor sells, lol.

I suppose we can blame that marketing disaster that was the 3.5 -> 4e version roll as a 'gift' from Bill Slavicsek, he seems to have been in charge there. Meh, they're screwed now. I think all the people that got pissed off at the transition to 4e will mostly keep playing PF and most of the people that liked 4e are going to be pissed off by 5e. WotC will have achieved nervana, a famous brand name product with no happy customers and a product that is basically an imitation of what their main competitor sells, lol.

*shudder* Ugh, ugh, ugh, I think you might actually be right. I say that as someone who likes the 4e rule set, while almost everyone else I know recoils in horror at the mere mention of it. (Thankfully not *my* DM from back in the day, who I played both 2e and 3.0 with. We've generally shrugged our shoulders because every edition has had holdouts.) They typically favor 3.5 but I think they've dabbled with PF. And then I recall one person who retrofitted everything back to 2e and had nothing but disgust to say about WotC. I turned my wife to the beta testing (she was the one that was itching to play again and bought the 4e books) but I still don't know what to think... this doesn't help, natch.

I actually remember when WotC made its presence in my local scene: they had taken over publishing SLA Industries, right on the heels of Magic: the Gathering becoming a big success. Since then, the flagship store in Seattle's U-district shut down, I found SLA Industries being published by someone else, and I don't hear much mention about Magic anymore. (Personally, I don't like collectible card games.)

I also remember a separate PR explosion that happened when White Wolf Gaming Studio rebooted their World of Darkness series. My old DM called that "How to Piss Off Your Fanbase". I think they accepted some input but nothing that I recall that was flat out on the level of beta testing, so I'm not sure if WotC could have avoided this if a beta had been done before 4e. I will otherwise agree that hardcore gamers (at least the ones I know) really don't like being taken for granted as you said, however.

Even after going on 5 years and over 30 supplements it still works reasonably well.

Sadly Mike Mearls doesn't seem to appreciate what he's got. Loads could be done with that system and without that sort of system the next edition will collapse in a heap of crap like 3e did. Oh well.

I think that's largely irrelevant. 4e has not been terribly successful from a commercial standpoint. Their customers have spoken, and most either don't like it for whatever real or perceived reasons or they just plain are not not interested in it based on what they've heard about it. WotC needs to do something to kickstart the franchise because 4e isn't getting it done on the sales side. I strongly suspect that's why they are going back into previous editions and re-releasing them as e-books to generate some cash flow while Next is under development.

Mike's job is not to make their customers love 4e. That was marketing's job to do after 4e was launched. If that love isn't there by now, it never will be. Mike's job now, for better or for worse, is to reboot the D&D franchise with a new system that appeals to a larger portion of their customer base. Clearly, you love 4e and that's cool, but there's no reason at this time to think the parts you love it about are going to be aborted for Next. Why so pessimistic? Everything WotC has been saying about it indicate to me that this will be the most streamlined version yet and will be built from the ground up to be as modular as possible with options, expansions, themes, etc. and still have a game that can be recognized as D&D.

Just to reiterate my previous point, if there's some features/rules/options that you can't live without from 4e, then you should be involved with the Next play test, if you aren't already, and voice your opinions on the WotC playtest forums and on the surveys they have been sending out to the play testers. This is your chance to speak up and voice your concerns directly to the developers at WotC regarding D&D's future.

Mike's job is not to make their customers love 4e. That was marketing's job to do after 4e was launched. If that love isn't there by now, it never will be. Mike's job now, for better or for worse, is to reboot the D&D franchise with a new system that appeals to a larger portion of their customer base. Clearly, you love 4e and that's cool, but there's no reason at this time to think the parts you love it about are going to be aborted for Next. Why so pessimistic? Everything WotC has been saying about it indicate to me that this will be the most streamlined version yet and will be built from the ground up to be as modular as possible with options, expansions, themes, etc. and still have a game that can be recognized as D&D.

Part of the appeal of 4e was the streamlined powers system. And all indications are that this system is plain gone in Next. None of the classes shown so far have anything that matches up to that.

I'm pleased that Next is trying to be modular, but that doesn't help if you wanted to play a 4e style character. Trying to port that over to Next would be problematic.

Quote:

Just to reiterate my previous point, if there's some features/rules/options that you can't live without from 4e, then you should be involved with the Next play test, if you aren't already, and voice your opinions on the WotC playtest forums and on the surveys they have been sending out to the play testers. This is your chance to speak up and voice your concerns directly to the developers at WotC regarding D&D's future.

That's not going to change the fact that Powers are gone. Too many D&D fans are shouting that down for it to ever be considered in the core rules for Next.

Just to reiterate my previous point, if there's some features/rules/options that you can't live without from 4e, then you should be involved with the Next play test, if you aren't already, and voice your opinions on the WotC playtest forums and on the surveys they have been sending out to the play testers. This is your chance to speak up and voice your concerns directly to the developers at WotC regarding D&D's future.

I won't even touch the popularity arguments, nobody has much way to gauge that, and if you do enough research what you find is that the motivating factor seems to have more to do with internal Hasbro politics and the resulting unrealistic sales goals set for D&D than anything else.

The problem is that 4e is not some 'bolt on', what makes it what it is, and what makes it desirable to its fans is largely the OVERALL way that the game is organized, presented, and designed. 5e is a huge step backwards in all of these ways, or at least is certainly firmly headed in the direction of being a huge step backwards. I already own 1e and 2e AD&D, I don't need another AD&D, or another huge incoherent mass of crud that 3e turned into.

I know all about the playtest, trust me, been there, done that. Frankly things have gone in such a completely uninteresting and sad direction that I can't even get the people I game with to touch it anymore, nobody is interested. Mike's love is 1e and that's what Next is, 1e redux, ugh.

That's not going to change the fact that Powers are gone. Too many D&D fans are shouting that down for it to ever be considered in the core rules for Next.

Yep. I really like Powers myself, but I've got to be fair and state what I observed, for better and for worse.

Powers sort of took the burden of the spell-based classes, most particularly mages/wizards, and gave it to all classes. Everyone had to prep something before rolling the dice. I have to admit I was fumbling with my cards a lot setting up my next move, and if our one other player is any indication, I'm guessing many players did not like that, waiting and delaying the gratification of what the dice would bring.

I do say that I thought combat was very smooth once I got the hang of my cards, but being more honest, it really gave flavor text to combat scenes. Really, though, remembering all of my gaming experiences (not just D&D) both players and DMs/GMs/Storytellers opted to riff things occasionally on a whim or skip combat detail entirely. Oh, and Powers pretty much demanded a movement map and miniatures because so many of them changed movement and position of monsters (as well as players) each roll, i.e. you could push monsters, radically shift your movement, etc.

Players told me they didn't like how Powers affected rangers and thieves ("rogues"). I'll admit playing a ranger myself, that rangers no longer had the upper hand on tracking because there was no specialized mechanic there. Basically anyone could do it, so my wife made a houserule to create a modifier for rangers. Thieves also lost on areas they previously had specialization in-- pickpocketing, trap handling, and probably a few things I'm forgetting. Again, the abilities were diluted to all classes. Backstab was no longer a multiplier, but a power, and not an early one.

Oh, quick aside and EDIT: I remember our player complaining that Magic Missile was nerfed-- previously, it always could be counted to hit, although it had low damage. (I can't remember if Isaac's Missile Storm made the cut, which was basically Magic Missile multiplied.)

On the other hand and oddly enough, Powers made bards relevant as a class, IMHO, and it was really weird that our player didn't like Powers but didn't seem to realize that bards were incredibly weak in 3e and he'd basically suck if we were to switch to that ruleset. They were always weird hybrids from 1e on and even 2e's "Enthrall" was only relevant to soft roleplay scenes. Powers did expand the bard's ability to be a rallying force, but gave them a little more oomph of their own. (Don't believe me? If you've got a copy of Neverwinter Nights on your PC, try playing a bard. 3e bards are weak.) But again-- I've got this feeling that the majority of players don't like bards; maybe not as much as Star Wars RPGers abuse droids, but... close, I'm sure.

EDIT: edited out a part about Powers being an "add-on" or "bolt-on", if you will, but I still stand by my assertion that outside of cons, a good number of D&D players DO make modifications as they please. They also holdout full on to earlier editions-- there's always a breakoff group that doesn't embrace the latest ruleset, and that's been happening for many years.

On the other hand and oddly enough, Powers made bards relevant as a class, IMHO, and it was really weird that our player didn't like Powers but didn't seem to realize that bards were incredibly weak in 3e and he'd basically suck if we were to switch to that ruleset. They were always weird hybrids from 1e on and even 2e's "Enthrall" was only relevant to soft roleplay scenes. Powers did expand the bard's ability to be a rallying force, but gave them a little more oomph of their own. (Don't believe me? If you've got a copy of Neverwinter Nights on your PC, try playing a bard. 3e bards are weak.) But again-- I've got this feeling that the majority of players don't like bards; maybe not as much as Star Wars RPGers abuse droids, but... close, I'm sure.

Of course. Conceptually, bards should be the ones that shine in many non-combat situations. Diplomacy, information gathering, etc. Since 4e utterly neglected anything but combat, they had to completely redesign the class to make it combat-effective.

4e did a good job of balancing everyone's combat abilities. That was one of the goals they set out to achieve and succeeded on. They just sacrificed everything else to do it. Classes were balanced so intensely that they pretty much all felt the same. E.g. no player option to trade off all-the-time abilities versus encounter powers versus dailies, everyone had these abilities in the same ratios.

That's not going to change the fact that Powers are gone. Too many D&D fans are shouting that down for it to ever be considered in the core rules for Next.

Yep. I really like Powers myself, but I've got to be fair and state what I observed, for better and for worse.

Powers sort of took the burden of the spell-based classes, most particularly mages/wizards, and gave it to all classes. Everyone had to prep something before rolling the dice. I have to admit I was fumbling with my cards a lot setting up my next move, and if our one other player is any indication, I'm guessing many players did not like that, waiting and delaying the gratification of what the dice would bring.

I do say that I thought combat was very smooth once I got the hang of my cards, but being more honest, it really gave flavor text to combat scenes. Really, though, remembering all of my gaming experiences (not just D&D) both players and DMs/GMs/Storytellers opted to riff things occasionally on a whim or skip combat detail entirely. Oh, and Powers pretty much demanded a movement map and miniatures because so many of them changed movement and position of monsters (as well as players) each roll, i.e. you could push monsters, radically shift your movement, etc.

Players told me they didn't like how Powers affected rangers and thieves ("rogues"). I'll admit playing a ranger myself, that rangers no longer had the upper hand on tracking because there was no specialized mechanic there. Basically anyone could do it, so my wife made a houserule to create a modifier for rangers. Thieves also lost on areas they previously had specialization in-- pickpocketing, trap handling, and probably a few things I'm forgetting. Again, the abilities were diluted to all classes. Backstab was no longer a multiplier, but a power, and not an early one.

Oh, quick aside and EDIT: I remember our player complaining that Magic Missile was nerfed-- previously, it always could be counted to hit, although it had low damage. (I can't remember if Isaac's Missile Storm made the cut, which was basically Magic Missile multiplied.)

On the other hand and oddly enough, Powers made bards relevant as a class, IMHO, and it was really weird that our player didn't like Powers but didn't seem to realize that bards were incredibly weak in 3e and he'd basically suck if we were to switch to that ruleset. They were always weird hybrids from 1e on and even 2e's "Enthrall" was only relevant to soft roleplay scenes. Powers did expand the bard's ability to be a rallying force, but gave them a little more oomph of their own. (Don't believe me? If you've got a copy of Neverwinter Nights on your PC, try playing a bard. 3e bards are weak.) But again-- I've got this feeling that the majority of players don't like bards; maybe not as much as Star Wars RPGers abuse droids, but... close, I'm sure.

EDIT: edited out a part about Powers being an "add-on" or "bolt-on", if you will, but I still stand by my assertion that outside of cons, a good number of D&D players DO make modifications as they please. They also holdout full on to earlier editions-- there's always a breakoff group that doesn't embrace the latest ruleset, and that's been happening for many years.

I think part of some people's difficulty is that 4e changed the conceptual framework of classes. They are still basically archetypes of heroes at the simplest level, you make a rogue and he's all sneaky and whatnot, etc. OTOH classes are also a lot more utilitarian and if you're going for specific concepts you're much better off looking at them as toolkits. Thus a rogue automatically has Stealth and Thievery, and probably has Acrobatics, Streetwise, etc. OTOH if you WANT you can build a fighter and give him those skills, now you have a tough street thug. Better still you can make a whole party of sneaky types for a 'thieve's guild' campaign, and they can be any class. As long as you're not all hung up on what is written on your character sheet this is a very nice design.

That works into the whole concept of fluff and mechanics being separable. It is a really powerful feature and if you don't mind taking it to extremes you can do a vast amount with 4e and never house rule or home brew anything at all.

I think the whole "powers are just too hard for people to deal with" thing is overblown. I mean I've introduced quite a few people to 4e that weren't RPG players and I don't see where any of them had any real problem with it. Sure, if I hand Joe Newb a 20th level 4e PC and tell him to play it, his brain may well melt. I really doubt that is any different than any post-1e edition of the game (and probably even in 1e you'd have 12 magic items that you'd have to figure out).

The whole problem/issue is presentation IMHO. I'm not even real sure anyone at WotC has ever had a very good handle on their own game. They're really disappointing me at this point.

Of course. Conceptually, bards should be the ones that shine in many non-combat situations. Diplomacy, information gathering, etc. Since 4e utterly neglected anything but combat, they had to completely redesign the class to make it combat-effective.

4e did a good job of balancing everyone's combat abilities. That was one of the goals they set out to achieve and succeeded on. They just sacrificed everything else to do it. Classes were balanced so intensely that they pretty much all felt the same. E.g. no player option to trade off all-the-time abilities versus encounter powers versus dailies, everyone had these abilities in the same ratios.

Yeah, I know the "4e does nothing but combat" trope is deeply embedded, but it is just objectively bunk.

On the other hand and oddly enough, Powers made bards relevant as a class, IMHO, and it was really weird that our player didn't like Powers but didn't seem to realize that bards were incredibly weak in 3e and he'd basically suck if we were to switch to that ruleset. They were always weird hybrids from 1e on and even 2e's "Enthrall" was only relevant to soft roleplay scenes. Powers did expand the bard's ability to be a rallying force, but gave them a little more oomph of their own. (Don't believe me? If you've got a copy of Neverwinter Nights on your PC, try playing a bard. 3e bards are weak.) But again-- I've got this feeling that the majority of players don't like bards; maybe not as much as Star Wars RPGers abuse droids, but... close, I'm sure.

Of course. Conceptually, bards should be the ones that shine in many non-combat situations. Diplomacy, information gathering, etc. Since 4e utterly neglected anything but combat, they had to completely redesign the class to make it combat-effective.

4e did a good job of balancing everyone's combat abilities. That was one of the goals they set out to achieve and succeeded on. They just sacrificed everything else to do it. Classes were balanced so intensely that they pretty much all felt the same. E.g. no player option to trade off all-the-time abilities versus encounter powers versus dailies, everyone had these abilities in the same ratios.

Because aside from providing for some basic rigor guidelines for skill use in social situations and how opposed rolls work, there simply isn't any reason to delve into non-combat stuff from a mechanical standpoint. One of the places 4e did fall down, however, was in failing to give non-combat situations their due diligence with regards to how DMs can utilize them. They just wedged them into the basic encounter mechanic (i.e. "This is how you earn experience for non-combat stuff.") and figured that was good enough. That, of course, stemmed from assurances from the vocal minority on the forums that that was good enough.

4e did so many things right but its two major flaws are quickly exposed when you put the system into the hands of an inexperienced DM: First, social encounters fall flat because they're too short and trite or they become long, tedious affairs that really ought to be broken up into multiple encounters. Second, the game's reliance on miniatures to explain the rules means that their safety blanket status is not quickly shed (bringing the game back to the old school of letters/numbers on a game mat with basic annotations about terrain).

But the real complication for WotC is/was Ryan Dancey's OGL. Closing the barn door after the horse and all that.

4e did so many things right but its two major flaws are quickly exposed when you put the system into the hands of an inexperienced DM: First, social encounters fall flat because they're too short and trite or they become long, tedious affairs that really ought to be broken up into multiple encounters. Second, the game's reliance on miniatures to explain the rules means that their safety blanket status is not quickly shed (bringing the game back to the old school of letters/numbers on a game mat with basic annotations about terrain).

But the real complication for WotC is/was Ryan Dancey's OGL. Closing the barn door after the horse and all that.

I don't really have a strong opinion about the OGL. I mean I'm a great consumer of open source software, but all that the OGL CLEARLY did was let Paizo take half of WotC's customers by redistributing a slight variant of their own game. It isn't clear that the OGL did or didn't benefit 3e sales one way or the other.

I'm curious why you would think that 4e uniquely would cause social encounters to "fall flat", you can RP them the same as ever you could in any other edition of D&D, and use your powers and skills as appropriate, just exactly as you could in previous editions. Admittedly AD&D doesn't have Diplomacy etc as explicit skills, but you still have CHA based reaction, which is basically the same thing.

PERSONALLY I wouldn't call miniatures a "safety blanket" either. Perhaps I'm mentally challenged in some way, but IMHO they're necessary if you're going to have any sort of complex combat situation at all, and that was as true in previous editions as in 4e. I realize not everyone seems to agree with that, but IME at least 50% of players appreciate and desire to use minis. Its fine if there is a way to make them optional, but I think people often oversell the extent to which that isn't possible in 4e. I've run plenty of simple combat situations without bothering to get out the grid and minis, it works fine as long as you're dealing with a simple situation and maybe 3-4 combatants total.

On the other hand and oddly enough, Powers made bards relevant as a class, IMHO, and it was really weird that our player didn't like Powers but didn't seem to realize that bards were incredibly weak in 3e and he'd basically suck if we were to switch to that ruleset. They were always weird hybrids from 1e on and even 2e's "Enthrall" was only relevant to soft roleplay scenes. Powers did expand the bard's ability to be a rallying force, but gave them a little more oomph of their own. (Don't believe me? If you've got a copy of Neverwinter Nights on your PC, try playing a bard. 3e bards are weak.) But again-- I've got this feeling that the majority of players don't like bards; maybe not as much as Star Wars RPGers abuse droids, but... close, I'm sure.

Of course. Conceptually, bards should be the ones that shine in many non-combat situations. Diplomacy, information gathering, etc. Since 4e utterly neglected anything but combat, they had to completely redesign the class to make it combat-effective.

4e did a good job of balancing everyone's combat abilities. That was one of the goals they set out to achieve and succeeded on. They just sacrificed everything else to do it. Classes were balanced so intensely that they pretty much all felt the same. E.g. no player option to trade off all-the-time abilities versus encounter powers versus dailies, everyone had these abilities in the same ratios.

Because aside from providing for some basic rigor guidelines for skill use in social situations and how opposed rolls work, there simply isn't any reason to delve into non-combat stuff from a mechanical standpoint. One of the places 4e did fall down, however, was in failing to give non-combat situations their due diligence with regards to how DMs can utilize them. They just wedged them into the basic encounter mechanic (i.e. "This is how you earn experience for non-combat stuff.") and figured that was good enough. That, of course, stemmed from assurances from the vocal minority on the forums that that was good enough.

Well, I would argue that making Powers the core of a character was a design choice that made skills secondary. And then all the miscellaneous type spells suddenly got shunted out of the character system and became rituals, where the number learned was mostly controlled by GM fiat instead of normal character development.

I'm not saying you can't roleplay non-combat situations while using 4e, you can. You can roleplay in any system, or with no system at all. You can have fun in any system if the GM is good. But non-combat abilities will never be a core competency of your character, simply cannot be central to your character design no matter how much you want to focus on them (e.g. sacrifice development of powers in favor of rituals). So I would say 4e did not encourage non-combat situations and in some cases hindered your ability to focus on them.

I'm sure this was a good match for how some people played. It certainly made it easier to balance combat encounters since everyone was equal.

Because aside from providing for some basic rigor guidelines for skill use in social situations and how opposed rolls work, there simply isn't any reason to delve into non-combat stuff from a mechanical standpoint. One of the places 4e did fall down, however, was in failing to give non-combat situations their due diligence with regards to how DMs can utilize them. They just wedged them into the basic encounter mechanic (i.e. "This is how you earn experience for non-combat stuff.") and figured that was good enough. That, of course, stemmed from assurances from the vocal minority on the forums that that was good enough.

4e did so many things right but its two major flaws are quickly exposed when you put the system into the hands of an inexperienced DM: First, social encounters fall flat because they're too short and trite or they become long, tedious affairs that really ought to be broken up into multiple encounters. Second, the game's reliance on miniatures to explain the rules means that their safety blanket status is not quickly shed (bringing the game back to the old school of letters/numbers on a game mat with basic annotations about terrain).

Gotta agree here. I actually liked having the social system use the same framework as combat, but many found it difficult to fit into their normal game flow. It's not good for in improv session, but it's perfect for folks who liked to plan out their game.

Quote:

But the real complication for WotC is/was Ryan Dancey's OGL. Closing the barn door after the horse and all that.

Yep. Cutting off the OGL from 4e was a bad move. And Paizo jumped on that opportunity, with obvious success. It's too bad, because I love the setting, but 3.5e still isn't a system I want to go back to.

I'll give 5e a shot, but I have a feeling Savage Worlds or FATE will be my go-to system from now on (provided I can convince my friends to try either ).

Well, I would argue that making Powers the core of a character was a design choice that made skills secondary. And then all the miscellaneous type spells suddenly got shunted out of the character system and became rituals, where the number learned was mostly controlled by GM fiat instead of normal character development.

Powers and skills are intimately tied together. Pretty much any power relies on or manipulates some sort of skill/ability check, unless it is an attack, in which case it is of course still based on an ability score. So skills aren't exactly 'secondary'. In fact IME I'd say players make at least as much use of skills as they do powers. If you are creating good interesting dynamic combat encounters you really SHOULD be having the PCs rely a good bit on their skills there too (and if they improvise page 42 relies pretty heavily on skill/ability checks too). 4e's broad skills also fill another mission, which is helping to define the "M.O." of the character (IE I'm a slippery fellow, I have a high Bluff, the truth is a malleable commodity to me).

Quote:

I'm not saying you can't roleplay non-combat situations while using 4e, you can. You can roleplay in any system, or with no system at all. You can have fun in any system if the GM is good. But non-combat abilities will never be a core competency of your character, simply cannot be central to your character design no matter how much you want to focus on them (e.g. sacrifice development of powers in favor of rituals). So I would say 4e did not encourage non-combat situations and in some cases hindered your ability to focus on them.

I'm sure this was a good match for how some people played. It certainly made it easier to balance combat encounters since everyone was equal.

I'll agree that you can't "trade powers for rituals" but that's not the whole story. I could spend all my feats on stuff that helps me with ritual casting (IE improving my Arcana/Nature/Heal/Religion checks, and there are numerous other feats that relate to rituals as well) and I could take a Theme, a PP, and an ED that are related to rituals as well (these all exist). I can pick utility powers and items that help me as a ritualist also. Sure, I will still have attack powers, and I can probably use them with some modicum of effectiveness, but to say that combat is something my character is focused on seems wrong, and rituals are DEFINITELY his core competency at that point.

So, I think you overestimate the degree to which you must focus on any given thing in 4e with your character. It is a lot more flexible than you're giving it credit for. I think in general that a lot of people have run into this perception. 4e is a very incremental system. You don't get to be the super duper master of ritual magic by picking something called "Ritual Master" and poof you're just all that. Instead you get a lot of individual selections at each level that you can do various things with and your character incrementally achieves focus by combining various choices. I'm not saying I entirely endorse that design, it does mean the game has a LOT of options and players have to make a lot of choices, but it does produce a lot of flexibility within what is at heart a pretty highly structured system. I think it is pretty clear that 5e's themes (now renamed specialties) and backgrounds are attempts to decrease the granularity in character building by letting you pick 'big picture' options that embody a lot of little choices automatically in them.

I'm curious why you would think that 4e uniquely would cause social encounters to "fall flat", you can RP them the same as ever you could in any other edition of D&D, and use your powers and skills as appropriate, just exactly as you could in previous editions. Admittedly AD&D doesn't have Diplomacy etc as explicit skills, but you still have CHA based reaction, which is basically the same thing.

PERSONALLY I wouldn't call miniatures a "safety blanket" either. Perhaps I'm mentally challenged in some way, but IMHO they're necessary if you're going to have any sort of complex combat situation at all, and that was as true in previous editions as in 4e. I realize not everyone seems to agree with that, but IME at least 50% of players appreciate and desire to use minis. Its fine if there is a way to make them optional, but I think people often oversell the extent to which that isn't possible in 4e. I've run plenty of simple combat situations without bothering to get out the grid and minis, it works fine as long as you're dealing with a simple situation and maybe 3-4 combatants total.

4e is hardly unique in this, but you'll note my caveat. 4e was aimed at attracting new people to the hobby, something it has only been somewhat successful in achieving. They ensured that the combat side of the equation was basically foolproof, but failed to provide better guidelines on handling non-combat encounters (aside from traps). AD&D placed the onus of facilitating non-combat activity squarely on the DM and that sort of worked. 3.X provided a huge framework on social skills, so paring back down to the old AD&D method of "do whatever you want, here's how you do opposed rolls" falls flat with experienced groups. But it's even worse with new groups and inexperienced DMs who have otherwise been handed the keys to success.

I have a love/hate relationship with miniatures. I hate to see them used as a profit center, but I have no problem with them as set pieces for gaming (nor am I opposed to dry-erase battlemats). 4e ratcheted up the reliance on them, however, which serves to, you guessed it, further minimize non-combat encounters.

Mike's job is not to make their customers love 4e. That was marketing's job to do after 4e was launched. If that love isn't there by now, it never will be. Mike's job now, for better or for worse, is to reboot the D&D franchise with a new system that appeals to a larger portion of their customer base. Clearly, you love 4e and that's cool, but there's no reason at this time to think the parts you love it about are going to be aborted for Next. Why so pessimistic? Everything WotC has been saying about it indicate to me that this will be the most streamlined version yet and will be built from the ground up to be as modular as possible with options, expansions, themes, etc. and still have a game that can be recognized as D&D.

Part of the appeal of 4e was the streamlined powers system. And all indications are that this system is plain gone in Next. None of the classes shown so far have anything that matches up to that.

I'm pleased that Next is trying to be modular, but that doesn't help if you wanted to play a 4e style character. Trying to port that over to Next would be problematic.

Quote:

Just to reiterate my previous point, if there's some features/rules/options that you can't live without from 4e, then you should be involved with the Next play test, if you aren't already, and voice your opinions on the WotC playtest forums and on the surveys they have been sending out to the play testers. This is your chance to speak up and voice your concerns directly to the developers at WotC regarding D&D's future.

That's not going to change the fact that Powers are gone. Too many D&D fans are shouting that down for it to ever be considered in the core rules for Next.

The rules are not even close to being done. How do you know they are gone vs. simply not updated yet? Remember that the rules as distributed thus far are not fully representative of the intended final design or all of the options that will be included. You want powers included? Ask for it. If you don't get involved and insist upon having them, then of course they'll be on the chopping block. No one has said they cannot be included and I see nothing in the currently distributed material that would make powers a mutually exclusive concept/mechanic. These new rules have the flexibility to strip a character down to the bare bones of ability scores, a class, some equipment, and that's it if that's all you want to use.

Feats, skills, powers, proficiencies, etc.? These are all interchangeable concepts. Ultimately, they are all slightly different means to the same end of providing flavor and a means for specialized skills/abilities to a character that can be quantified in game terms. I see it as being no different than the debates over what magic systems to use for spell-casters (I.e. Vancian vs. spell points vs. at will powers with recharge times vs. whatever else). In that example, they are giving options to choose which spell system you prefer. WotC is trying to keep everyone happy with Next, even those minorities that like certain features over another, but only if that minority campaigns for it. Make your case for it, pitch your ideas to them on how it would work in Next, and there's a reasonable chance it may be included.

In the second set of videos I linked, the panel discussed the very idea of separating these out from the core. They left the rules in the core on the current play test kit, but they said this could change on future test kits. The idea and function of these rules lend themselves very easily to making them a module that can be substituted with an alternative, like that used in 4e, or left out altogether. So, they are clearly open to the idea of doing that.

The rules are not even close to being done. How do you know they are gone vs. simply not updated yet? Remember that the rules as distributed thus far are not fully representative of the intended final design or all of the options that will be included. You want powers included? Ask for it. If you don't get involved and insist upon having them, then of course they'll be on the chopping block. No one has said they cannot be included and I see nothing in the currently distributed material that would make powers a mutually exclusive concept/mechanic. These new rules have the flexibility to strip a character down to the bare bones of ability scores, a class, some equipment, and that's it if that's all you want to use.

Feats, skills, powers, proficiencies, etc.? These are all interchangeable concepts. Ultimately, they are all slightly different means to the same end of providing flavor and a means for specialized skills/abilities to a character that can be quantified in game terms. I see it as being no different than the debates over what magic systems to use for spell-casters (I.e. Vancian vs. spell points vs. at will powers with recharge times vs. whatever else). In that example, they are giving options to choose which spell system you prefer. WotC is trying to keep everyone happy with Next, even those minorities that like certain features over another, but only if that minority campaigns for it. Make your case for it, pitch your ideas to them on how it would work in Next, and there's a reasonable chance it may be included.

In the second set of videos I linked, the panel discussed the very idea of separating these out from the core. They left the rules in the core on the current play test kit, but they said this could change on future test kits. The idea and function of these rules lend themselves very easily to making them a module that can be substituted with an alternative, like that used in 4e, or left out altogether. So, they are clearly open to the idea of doing that.

There would be little point in playtesting rules that weren't substantially intended to be incorporated into the game as they are in the playtest material. Certainly some things will change, but it would be useless for a game designer to playtest a design direction that wasn't where the game was actually going.

You might have a point except then they released the Warlock and Sorcerer classes and Mike stated flat out "well, if you want to play a non-Vancian caster use one of these classes", and some other statements were made about how people had "misinterpreted the concept of modularity" and that classes were not going to have replaceable parts. In other words it is difficult to see how your perfectly plausible vision of 5e corresponds with the stated aims and product of the DDN design group...

I'm curious why you would think that 4e uniquely would cause social encounters to "fall flat", you can RP them the same as ever you could in any other edition of D&D, and use your powers and skills as appropriate, just exactly as you could in previous editions. Admittedly AD&D doesn't have Diplomacy etc as explicit skills, but you still have CHA based reaction, which is basically the same thing.

PERSONALLY I wouldn't call miniatures a "safety blanket" either. Perhaps I'm mentally challenged in some way, but IMHO they're necessary if you're going to have any sort of complex combat situation at all, and that was as true in previous editions as in 4e. I realize not everyone seems to agree with that, but IME at least 50% of players appreciate and desire to use minis. Its fine if there is a way to make them optional, but I think people often oversell the extent to which that isn't possible in 4e. I've run plenty of simple combat situations without bothering to get out the grid and minis, it works fine as long as you're dealing with a simple situation and maybe 3-4 combatants total.

4e is hardly unique in this, but you'll note my caveat. 4e was aimed at attracting new people to the hobby, something it has only been somewhat successful in achieving. They ensured that the combat side of the equation was basically foolproof, but failed to provide better guidelines on handling non-combat encounters (aside from traps). AD&D placed the onus of facilitating non-combat activity squarely on the DM and that sort of worked. 3.X provided a huge framework on social skills, so paring back down to the old AD&D method of "do whatever you want, here's how you do opposed rolls" falls flat with experienced groups. But it's even worse with new groups and inexperienced DMs who have otherwise been handed the keys to success.

I have a love/hate relationship with miniatures. I hate to see them used as a profit center, but I have no problem with them as set pieces for gaming (nor am I opposed to dry-erase battlemats). 4e ratcheted up the reliance on them, however, which serves to, you guessed it, further minimize non-combat encounters.

RPGs have been wrestling with providing mechanics for non-combat situations for decades. It is huge undertaking because 'non-combat situation' basically covers all of life outside of a very niche type of situation that truthfully most people never even encounter (though PCs certainly do so regularly). The point is combat doesn't have to be very realistic and it is a narrow type of situation for which finite rules are suitable. OTOH 4e's skill challenges are trying to cover everything from negotiating a peace treaty to rafting down a river with one set of mechanics. It is a rather seriously difficult task.

Some games, usually of the 'storytelling' type, have accomplished generalized mechanics fairly well, but they work in a totally different way from D&D. In those types of systems the players use PLAYER resources to create or modify the narrative, then the character's interaction simply happens (maybe mediated by some ability scores or whatever that serve to define how he can achieve whatever the player's plot coupon bought). D&D being constrained to an older style of traditional game/simulation type design simply cannot do that, and thus has a MUCH harder time. D&D also traditionally allows for pretty much complete character autonomy. There are no mechanics which dictate what a PC will do or will not do, or what their goals are, etc. Again this rather constrains the available design choices of the developers.

I will note though that 'indie' type storytelling mechanics can be pretty hard for many people to grasp. They can be cool games, but a more concrete game/simulation type RPG is closer to the sort of mental model most people have of a game and is thus really a lot easier to introduce new players to. I think these are significant reasons why D&D in particular has remained popular. It also means that in general D&D will never have much in the way of 'role playing mechanics'. In fact there's a pretty strong argument for removing the existing social skills from the game, which may well happen in 5e.

4e did so many things right but its two major flaws are quickly exposed when you put the system into the hands of an inexperienced DM: First, social encounters fall flat because they're too short and trite or they become long, tedious affairs that really ought to be broken up into multiple encounters.

I'm curious why you would think that 4e uniquely would cause social encounters to "fall flat", you can RP them the same as ever you could in any other edition of D&D, and use your powers and skills as appropriate, just exactly as you could in previous editions. Admittedly AD&D doesn't have Diplomacy etc as explicit skills, but you still have CHA based reaction, which is basically the same thing.

Going back to how I said that rangers and thieves/"rogues" shifted from 3e-4e: one possibility I thought of was expanding Utility Powers to non-combat situations, and therefore, tracking, trap handling, etc. would be drawn up as a utility power. I understand these were always handled by skill checks, but again, Powers were more descriptive than the usual skill check. Much easier to therefore describe WHY the ranger could track better than another class, WHY the thief was better at pickpocketing, using traps, etc. and to what degrees these got better over time.

These particular skills should ALREADY have been drawn up as such for 4e, IMHO, because they already have a closer connection to combat than some others. So many ranger Powers referred to "hunt the quarry" that I really honestly wondered why they didn't emphasize tracking at least as a transition between combat scenes. Pickpocketing-- well, I recall at least more than one scenario where the rogue got less of a slap and more of a "kiss my blade". Traps are admittedly a terrain feature but still, they were indicated to the map and almost always featured in a combat situation somewhere, that I can remember.

Vipre77 wrote:

Feats, skills, powers, proficiencies, etc.? These are all interchangeable concepts. Ultimately, they are all slightly different means to the same end of providing flavor and a means for specialized skills/abilities to a character that can be quantified in game terms.

Well, yes. I think those of us who have played several RPGs other than D&D recognized how different systems set up their rules mechanics. This was always key for those that wanted to bring over character concepts from a different game. And there were always factions that favored mechanics to determine an outcome more than just letting the DM/GM (or the player, really) imagine up a story for it. I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on how prose-based roleplay has influenced RPGs and actually led a shift *away* from rolling dice and statistical calculations. Dice RPGs will always have more concrete rules than the roleplay from the writer's circle, but really, I do remember how much books and novels had an impact in the 2e years. I honestly can't remember many books so connected (if any) before then. Players *knew* the stories reasonably well, or at least the personalities of hero characters, especially those for Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms.

And that shift I think was what led the movement of people to say RPGers weren't all nerdy engineering types, but a broader section of people that wanted to play a game to tell a story. The old tactical wargaming roots of the past are always going to be there, so there's always going to be some complexity of rules, but with a broader audience, apparently, there's just some tension between those that will quantify and analyze everything and those that would rather qualify and intuitively describe. I suppose I'm a mixture of both, so I tend to take both for a game.

Alhazred wrote:

Some games, usually of the 'storytelling' type, have accomplished generalized mechanics fairly well, but they work in a totally different way from D&D. In those types of systems the players use PLAYER resources to create or modify the narrative, then the character's interaction simply happens (maybe mediated by some ability scores or whatever that serve to define how he can achieve whatever the player's plot coupon bought). D&D being constrained to an older style of traditional game/simulation type design simply cannot do that, and thus has a MUCH harder time. D&D also traditionally allows for pretty much complete character autonomy. There are no mechanics which dictate what a PC will do or will not do, or what their goals are, etc. Again this rather constrains the available design choices of the developers.

They really do tend to be a horse of a different color, but there's been some blurring of lines, somewhat, in recent years. But, yeah, D&D is very much of the older wargaming tradition.

Quote:

In fact there's a pretty strong argument for removing the existing social skills from the game, which may well happen in 5e.

I hope not but that may suit more storytelling-type players and DMs just fine to have "soft" RP be without any mechanics at all.

In fact there's a pretty strong argument for removing the existing social skills from the game, which may well happen in 5e.

I hope not but that may suit more storytelling-type players and DMs just fine to have "soft" RP be without any mechanics at all.

Well, ironically the simulationist wargamer type approach was always free-from RP with rules for concrete things. Skills in general were never really favored by the wargaming group, it was more a matter of "describe what you do" and the dichotomy really is between 'challenge the player' and 'challenge the character'. If you are challenging the player then you eschew 'soft' skills (and possibly even hard skills). The 'challenge the character' camp, which tend to be more story-oriented players value skills like perception and diplomacy vs "if you don't look in the chest you don't find the dingus" and "convince the DM that your offer is attractive to the dragon". A SYSTEM that is built for storytelling will then add on some sort of plot coupon, which allows you to have a character be "good at diplomacy" because he has a plot coupon for that, and then he describes how his argument DOES convince the dragon. Thus skills in storytelling games play a different role than in a 'challenge the character' type simulationist game, and are out of place entirely in 'challenge the player' (where they simply have no function).

Of course no game is purely in one camp. D&D always had ability scores, which differentiate character capability from player capability, but it did start in a challenge the player mode, and has evolved towards challenge the character and a more plot-oriented sort of play. I doubt it will ever make that leap to plot coupon type play as I said before, and there are plenty of other RPG products that fill that niche already.

"Challenge the player" vs. "challenge the character". I like that. It's a different angle from what I'm thinking and have explained to others before, but I think your description is more articulate.

I guess my concern is more of an individual, personal one. Unless I missed something, I remember the "simulationist wargaming" approach was the older, more established type. My wife and I are relatively young as far as that scene is concerned (her parents were a part of it, once, but mine weren't), but being thirtysomething, fortysomething, we just are more familiar with it. D&D was *the* RPG game of our early childhoods and we just keep pulling back to it; it's also a sort of lingua franca amongst most of the gamers we know.

I don't doubt that more story-oriented RPGs exist, but we've been out of the loop for a long time with no money for cons (or many games) and no hints where to delve in the sea of resources online. Any games that come immediately to mind that you'd suggest? It seems easier almost to walk away from D&D for a while, wait for the dust to settle-- especially considering our local scene, where it seems most of the populace, not just gaming-wise, is stuck in an incredible rut.

"Challenge the player" vs. "challenge the character". I like that. It's a different angle from what I'm thinking and have explained to others before, but I think your description is more articulate.

I guess my concern is more of an individual, personal one. Unless I missed something, I remember the "simulationist wargaming" approach was the older, more established type. My wife and I are relatively young as far as that scene is concerned (her parents were a part of it, once, but mine weren't), but being thirtysomething, fortysomething, we just are more familiar with it. D&D was *the* RPG game of our early childhoods and we just keep pulling back to it; it's also a sort of lingua franca amongst most of the gamers we know.

I don't doubt that more story-oriented RPGs exist, but we've been out of the loop for a long time with no money for cons (or many games) and no hints where to delve in the sea of resources online. Any games that come immediately to mind that you'd suggest? It seems easier almost to walk away from D&D for a while, wait for the dust to settle-- especially considering our local scene, where it seems most of the populace, not just gaming-wise, is stuck in an incredible rut.

Well, there's a LOT out there these days. This is sort of a 'golden age' of RPGs (maybe more of a Silver Age). You could look at other fantasy themed games. Savage Worlds is fairly D&D-like, but a bit different, that could be interesting. Then there are the more story oriented games. There's all the old White Wolf stuff of course. There are things like Burning Wheel (and Mouse Guard, which I have read through but not played) which is more of a story telling system. There are smaller lightweight systems, FUDGE is a framework for dice pool games, FATE is another one. You could try a very simple game, one called PACE seemed clever http://www.evilhat.com/pace/pace.pdf and we used it for a little Arthurian knights kind of thing that worked out OK. Frankly there are just vast numbers of games out there and I can hardly scratch the surface. Eclipse Phase is a hard core futurian thing, fairly classic in concept really. Traveller is still out there too, Mongoose publishes that these days, and amazingly it is virtually unchanged from the original 1970's Marc Miller version (in fact I think most of the books are still pretty much the original text, it is kind of a timeless game). Gumshoe is a detective game, which also has a Lovecraftian themed spin off. It is a bit more of a story type system as well.

The rules are not even close to being done. How do you know they are gone vs. simply not updated yet? Remember that the rules as distributed thus far are not fully representative of the intended final design or all of the options that will be included.

The entire point of Powers was that they were the framework around which all classes worked. We've already seen that Wizards isn't using that for any of the classes released so far. I can't imagine they'd do it just for one class, and that kinda defeats the purpose anyway.

Quote:

You want powers included? Ask for it. If you don't get involved and insist upon having them, then of course they'll be on the chopping block. No one has said they cannot be included and I see nothing in the currently distributed material that would make powers a mutually exclusive concept/mechanic.

As I said, Powers were the fundamental building block of classes in 4e. You can't just tack that onto what Next is using in place of them. It would involve rewriting the classes in Next entirely.

Quote:

These new rules have the flexibility to strip a character down to the bare bones of ability scores, a class, some equipment, and that's it if that's all you want to use.

Feats, skills, powers, proficiencies, etc.? These are all interchangeable concepts. Ultimately, they are all slightly different means to the same end of providing flavor and a means for specialized skills/abilities to a character that can be quantified in game terms. I see it as being no different than the debates over what magic systems to use for spell-casters (I.e. Vancian vs. spell points vs. at will powers with recharge times vs. whatever else). In that example, they are giving options to choose which spell system you prefer. WotC is trying to keep everyone happy with Next, even those minorities that like certain features over another, but only if that minority campaigns for it. Make your case for it, pitch your ideas to them on how it would work in Next, and there's a reasonable chance it may be included.

In the second set of videos I linked, the panel discussed the very idea of separating these out from the core. They left the rules in the core on the current play test kit, but they said this could change on future test kits. The idea and function of these rules lend themselves very easily to making them a module that can be substituted with an alternative, like that used in 4e, or left out altogether. So, they are clearly open to the idea of doing that.

No, feats, powers and skills are not interchangeable. Their basic functions are very different. And I can't just say "Wizards are using the 4e powers set in Next," because the basic math of difficulties has changed, among other things.

There's zero chance they will include Powers in the core rulebooks. Any request for them has been shouted down by fans so hard, WotC wouldn't touch it. Maybe they'll do it in a supplement later, but it's not something you can slot into the Next classes on its own.

The rules are not even close to being done. How do you know they are gone vs. simply not updated yet? Remember that the rules as distributed thus far are not fully representative of the intended final design or all of the options that will be included.

The entire point of Powers was that they were the framework around which all classes worked. We've already seen that Wizards isn't using that for any of the classes released so far. I can't imagine they'd do it just for one class, and that kinda defeats the purpose anyway.

Quote:

You want powers included? Ask for it. If you don't get involved and insist upon having them, then of course they'll be on the chopping block. No one has said they cannot be included and I see nothing in the currently distributed material that would make powers a mutually exclusive concept/mechanic.

As I said, Powers were the fundamental building block of classes in 4e. You can't just tack that onto what Next is using in place of them. It would involve rewriting the classes in Next entirely.

Quote:

These new rules have the flexibility to strip a character down to the bare bones of ability scores, a class, some equipment, and that's it if that's all you want to use.

Feats, skills, powers, proficiencies, etc.? These are all interchangeable concepts. Ultimately, they are all slightly different means to the same end of providing flavor and a means for specialized skills/abilities to a character that can be quantified in game terms. I see it as being no different than the debates over what magic systems to use for spell-casters (I.e. Vancian vs. spell points vs. at will powers with recharge times vs. whatever else). In that example, they are giving options to choose which spell system you prefer. WotC is trying to keep everyone happy with Next, even those minorities that like certain features over another, but only if that minority campaigns for it. Make your case for it, pitch your ideas to them on how it would work in Next, and there's a reasonable chance it may be included.

In the second set of videos I linked, the panel discussed the very idea of separating these out from the core. They left the rules in the core on the current play test kit, but they said this could change on future test kits. The idea and function of these rules lend themselves very easily to making them a module that can be substituted with an alternative, like that used in 4e, or left out altogether. So, they are clearly open to the idea of doing that.

No, feats, powers and skills are not interchangeable. Their basic functions are very different. And I can't just say "Wizards are using the 4e powers set in Next," because the basic math of difficulties has changed, among other things.

There's zero chance they will include Powers in the core rulebooks. Any request for them has been shouted down by fans so hard, WotC wouldn't touch it. Maybe they'll do it in a supplement later, but it's not something you can slot into the Next classes on its own.

QFT

The whole POINT of 4e was that all classes used powers which were all structured in the same way, acquired according to a standard progression, and could be attached to anything, interchanged, etc. (well, that was certainly one necessary attribute for the game to be 'like 4e'). Tacking an AEDU class that uses powers onto a mish-mash system like 5e is now is meaningless. If Mike thinks that will interest 4e fans AT ALL he's completely misunderstanding the attraction of the system.

Tacking an AEDU class that uses powers onto a mish-mash system like 5e is now is meaningless. If Mike thinks that will interest 4e fans AT ALL he's completely misunderstanding the attraction of the system.

I think he's pretty clear-headed regarding his roughly 0 percent chance to convince 4e fans to like/play/consider Next. He does, however, have a responsibility to toe the party line.

Bah, what was wrong with AD&D? It would be awesome if someone made a Facebook app for it. D&D is fundamentally a social game; seems like a good app could bring back a lot of the old style fun without the paperwork, and remove the need to be in the same, small room somewhere on the planet.

Totally agree - Google hangouts is perfect for that - sure it is being done already.... Facebook is fine, but Google+ kills with hangouts

I agree in a general sense that D&D 4th Edition is a cleaner and more elegant design; certainly from a tactical standpoint. I like many of the design objectives of the new edition; simplification, consistency, more to do at lower level and making sure every players has something to contribute.

I jumped into D&D 4th Edition with both feet in 2008. I was ready for a change and I liked what I read about in the new version. My play and game-mastering style is: cinematic, storytelling, role-play with the tactical aspect a necessary evil. Seemed like a good fit. The new edition also brought in a lot of new people into our local gaming club who heard about it and wanted to try it. Good marketing clearly.

Two years ago I said good-by to 4th Edition.

Tabletop RPG have been a hobby for me since 1981 and I find that I have given this topic an embarrassing amount of thought:

1. Forth Edition never felt like D&D. There were times I did enjoy the game in it own way, but usually felt like fantasy board game to me. I like board games but not what I wanted from D&D. Combat always requires a grid map; due to the capabilities of it powers (shifting). The use of language like “Leader, Striker, Defender” , away from what class your are; ie Ranger, Wizard etc., seems to contribute to the more tactical feel. Lastly; being penalized for making a basic attack instead of using the special card “at will powers”.

2. An unanticipated out come of it’s efficient tactical structure is; much more war-game style play. Yes, their can be role-play in 4th Ed - and core books do encourage role-play - but on average I have found there is less of it; the issue became so noticeable that it become the topic of jokes. The task resolution rules; meant to encourage team play and more character interaction seem actually have the reverse affect. Instead of saying what you do; you just roll now.

3. I had a hard time getting my head around the Players Handbook. I had to rely on the computer to make characters. “Builds” and options just seem difficult for me. Maybe is just that I do not play the online MMO role-playing games. I found the newer paperback 4th Ed. books to be clearer. While most in our group were fine with Players Handbook; I was not alone.

In the end; I expect to buy D&D Next. We did a play-test and while it’s clearly a new game; it did succeed in feeling like D&D to us. The public play test; which must be painful for Wizards of the Coast, is a good idea. Forth Edition had the feeling of not being thoroughly play-tested. Extensive errata and high level combat seems to be broken.

I do not think 4th Edition was a total fail. I think at low level play, it is the best version ever. Lot to do. I like the general idea of the players being heroic figures. It was a bold reinvention of a classic game and culture icon; always a risky proposition.

For the time being; I am running and playing in Pathfinder from Paizo for my High Fantasy RPG fix. Pathfinder is of course is really a Wizards of the Coast product; with the benefit of ten years plus of refinement - but I do find it to be a noticeable improvement over D&D 3rd Edition. I use D&D Forgotten Realms setting with it.

Thank you Charlie Hall for your account of the ongoing Dungeons & Dragons transition and debate. You piece touched me, in that much of your experience parallels my own. These topics continue to be items of discussion & debate - sometimes passionately so - at our local RPG weekly meetup.

Forth Edition never felt like D&D. There were times I did enjoy the game in it own way, but usually felt like fantasy board game to me.

I contacted my long-time DM/GM and that's essentially what he said, that it was a fine game on its own, but that it didn't feel like D&D and was ultimately not for him.

He gave me a look at Pathfinder, which I'm willing to give a chance. He said it was considered D&D 3.75 and reading links from the staff he also sent me, apparently that's what the Paizo staff called it when they were all waiting for word from WotC about the OGL and future work (before 4e). Paizo's claim that Pathfinder is easy to use with existing sourcebooks did very much catch my attention although I have no idea how compatible it really is for 2e and older. However, my sister and brother-in-law are deep into 3.5-- I suspect mostly because they were cutting back spending on anything new past their big 3.5 collection. I wasn't all that jazzed about 3e generally so if Pathfinder is a noticable improvement, I'm tempted to see if they will convert over.

You did touch on some other things I noticed about 4e-- the good and the bad-- but we never got to high level characters because our lone player wandered off for supposedly greener pastures. That's good to know because I did have a character that my wife had recommended for an epic destiny (dragonborn monk connected to the return of Io). That and we also have a very similar playing style, a "challenge the character" approach as was described earlier.

My "long-time" DM I mentioned earlier is a more "challenge the player" tactical type but I generally trust his judgment as he's got a fairly good perception on what many gamers I've met want. I was very concerned that he said an earlier version of the playtest document had very veiled contempt for previous editions as far as gameplay. I also believe him when he says that WotC is not doing much to actually consider and integrate player feedback on D&D Next and doing what I would call a politician's handshake (pat themselves on the back). He apologized for sounding like a gushing fanboy about Paizo but he had good structured arguments about how Paizo had earned and kept his trust.

My wife has been playing since 1981 too, by the way-- since she was eager to DM when she bought the 4e books and we've played RPGs together ever since we met-- I also take her perspective seriously. We looked the recent version of the Next playtest, and there were things that discouraged us. I freely admit that I like specialist classes; while I see what they are doing with class streamlining, I just am not comfortable with stuffing rangers, monks, and paladins back into basic Fighter concepts. I understand there are ways to specialize but it just seems too oversimplifying for concepts I like. My wife did notice there seemed to be bits taken from previous editions, and I did see that, but I had to agree it seemed a sort of "try to please everyone but please no one"-- and of course as I said so many in the community would argue WotC seems to be doing a poor job of even trying to please their customer base (was going to say "fanbase" but I don't see many "fans" of WotC).

Next/5e could turn out to be good but when we're already struggling to find players and our hometown area (not just gamers) seem stuck in a rut, we are reluctant to take a risk on something so many we know seem to be despising, and that we have our own reservations with.

Tacking an AEDU class that uses powers onto a mish-mash system like 5e is now is meaningless. If Mike thinks that will interest 4e fans AT ALL he's completely misunderstanding the attraction of the system.

I think he's pretty clear-headed regarding his roughly 0 percent chance to convince 4e fans to like/play/consider Next. He does, however, have a responsibility to toe the party line.

What? There are 4e players willing to try Next. Me, for one. I just don't ever see it being as clean or consistent as 4e was.

Forth Edition never felt like D&D. There were times I did enjoy the game in it own way, but usually felt like fantasy board game to me.

I contacted my long-time DM/GM and that's essentially what he said, that it was a fine game on its own, but that it didn't feel like D&D and was ultimately not for him.

He gave me a look at Pathfinder, which I'm willing to give a chance. He said it was considered D&D 3.75 and reading links from the staff he also sent me, apparently that's what the Paizo staff called it when they were all waiting for word from WotC about the OGL and future work (before 4e). Paizo's claim that Pathfinder is easy to use with existing sourcebooks did very much catch my attention although I have no idea how compatible it really is for 2e and older. However, my sister and brother-in-law are deep into 3.5-- I suspect mostly because they were cutting back spending on anything new past their big 3.5 collection. I wasn't all that jazzed about 3e generally so if Pathfinder is a noticable improvement, I'm tempted to see if they will convert over.

Yeah, Pathfinder really is a 3.75e. It fixes a few bugs with 3.x but still keeps a bunch of others.

2e can be converted to 3.x but it's not simple. The claim of Pathfinder being compatible with pre-existing books refers to 3.0 and 3.5 material, as well as the OGL stuff based on those.

Tacking an AEDU class that uses powers onto a mish-mash system like 5e is now is meaningless. If Mike thinks that will interest 4e fans AT ALL he's completely misunderstanding the attraction of the system.

I think he's pretty clear-headed regarding his roughly 0 percent chance to convince 4e fans to like/play/consider Next. He does, however, have a responsibility to toe the party line.

What? There are 4e players willing to try Next. Me, for one. I just don't ever see it being as clean or consistent as 4e was.

No kidding. I'm SIMPLY NOT going back to the utterly broken bullcrap that was 3.x. It literally took 5 hours to set up an encounter that can be designed in 5 MINUTES in 4e, and then actually works. I could care less if someone is nostalgic for when they were 12 and wants to tell me 4e doesn't make them feel like it is 1975 anymore because it ain't and we're never going back there. The point is to have fun NOW. So far DDN doesn't deliver the ease of play.